linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 2/2] perf/core: Fix broken throttling when max_samples_per

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <ca94f413-4e35-41fd-9554-c80d6e2707ac@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 18 Apr 2025 21:08:30 +0800
From: Qing Wang <wangqing7171@...il.com>
To: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Cc: acme@...nel.org, adrian.hunter@...el.com,
 alexander.shishkin@...ux.intel.com, irogers@...gle.com, jolsa@...nel.org,
 kan.liang@...ux.intel.com, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
 linux-perf-users@...r.kernel.org, mark.rutland@....com, mingo@...hat.com,
 namhyung@...nel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] perf/core: Fix broken throttling when
 max_samples_per_tick=1

Thank you very much for your review. Do you need me to reorganize the 
patch and send it out? Because if only the second patch is accepted, its 
context won't match the current mainline code.

On 4/18/2025 5:03 PM, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> Fair enough I suppose. I'll make this apply without that revert -- it
> seems pointless to have that in between.